HELLO AND WELCOME! Before you can post your question, you'll have to register -- it's completely free and registered users see less advertising! If you just want to browse through the existing questions, just select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Otherwise, click here to register!. We highly recommend that you print a copy of our Guide for New Members. Enjoy!

Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

This Article is really really quite awesome! This is one part of the article that I have really liked and sad, but it is true:

Well, I don&#039;t like stupid names like &quot;Joe Sixpack&quot;, &quot;Joe Average&quot;, or whatever. The average &#039;idiot&#039; user is someone who will characteristically describe themselves as an &#039;idiot with computers&#039;. They don&#039;t know what a kernel is, they frequently think that 3.5&quot; floppy disks are &#039;hard disks&#039;, they don&#039;t know what the &#039;internet&#039; is (although they know how to check and send email), and they don&#039;t know a whole lot of things. Windows has abstracted most things so that people don&#039;t *have* to know about computers to use them. This is bad, but is a subject for another article entirely.

So, your average &#039;idiot&#039; user isn&#039;t necessarily an idiot, they just don&#039;t know much about computers. They can point to a mouse, use it to point and click, and probably don&#039;t even know how to touchtype. They know that if their computer breaks, reboot it. If that doesn&#039;t fix it, call someone who knows more than they do. You might be an average &#039;idiot&#039; user. You might be the person the average &#039;idiot&#039; user calls to fix their computer.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

Linux can be very easy to install - look at Lindows, Lycoris, Ark and even Fedora.

I tried the new LongHorn installer, and it&#039;s pretty nice as well, but I still prefer Anaconda. I generally think that Anaconda is easier to use than most others, and it gives fine grained control - it can either do it for you, or you can have a peice of the action.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

[quote author=BSD p0rn master link=board=13;threadid=9075;start=0#msg82153 date=1082622090]
Linux can be very easy to install - look at Lindows, Lycoris, Ark and even Fedora.

I tried the new LongHorn installer, and it&#039;s pretty nice as well, but I still prefer Anaconda. I generally think that Anaconda is easier to use than most others, and it gives fine grained control - it can either do it for you, or you can have a peice of the action.
[/quote]

Yeah! I recently installed FC1 on my PC and the installer (text or X) is very awesome! But I prefer Slackware&#039;s over anything else. But for a &quot;newbie&quot; I like FC 1.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

i think our opinions are biased on this subject. We are all very computer literate here, what seems easy and mindless to us may not make sence to someone who is new to computers.

I personally think the windows XP and 2000 installs are extremely easy, i&#039;d like to think just about anyone could install thoes without much difficulty.

Now linux on the other hand maybe alittle more difficult but still on the easy side. Redhat and mandrake maybe the easiest to install but distros like debian, gentoo, slackware i think you really need to know your way around the computer for thoes.

I completely agree with the bolded part of the article, i work at a helpdesk and i am still amazed that people could sit behind a computer for 8 hours a day and have no idea how they work or even what is what. All they know is mouse, keyboard and monitor eveything else is totaly forgotten about.

I disagree with this

For those of you who have never installed Windows 2000 Professional, it has a bastard installer. Partitioning is handled through a text-driven UI.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

[quote author=boblucci link=board=13;threadid=9075;start=0#msg82162 date=1082646595]
i think our opinions are biased on this subject. We are all very computer literate here, what seems easy and mindless to us may not make sence to someone who is new to computers.

I personally think the windows XP and 2000 installs are extremely easy, i&#039;d like to think just about anyone could install thoes without much difficulty.

Now linux on the other hand maybe alittle more difficult but still on the easy side. Redhat and mandrake maybe the easiest to install but distros like debian, gentoo, slackware i think you really need to know your way around the computer for thoes.

I completely agree with the bolded part of the article, i work at a helpdesk and i am still amazed that people could sit behind a computer for 8 hours a day and have no idea how they work or even what is what. All they know is mouse, keyboard and monitor eveything else is totaly forgotten about.

I disagree with this

For those of you who have never installed Windows 2000 Professional, it has a bastard installer. Partitioning is handled through a text-driven UI.

I dont know who old this article is but i&#039;ve never had to reboot that many time during an install.....
[/quote]

Well, I have done a Mandrake 9.2 Install, Red Hat 9 Install, and Lorma Linux Install (Lorma Universities&#039; Linux). All of these, I consider to be easy. I have also done a Windows XP Install and a Windows 98 Install. Even though all of these easy, I think even though Windows Installs are easy, you have no idea what it is doing. IT has no verbose mode at all. However in Linux, (i have installed over 25 distros now), you know what is going on. YOu can learn more about the computers that way. Plus Windows Installer is blue.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

Well, I have done a Mandrake 9.2 Install, Red Hat 9 Install, and Lorma Linux Install (Lorma Universities&#039; Linux). All of these, I consider to be easy. I have also done a Windows XP Install and a Windows 98 Install. Even though all of these easy, I think even though Windows Installs are easy, you have no idea what it is doing. IT has no verbose mode at all. However in Linux, (i have installed over 25 distros now), you know what is going on. YOu can learn more about the computers that way. Plus Windows Installer is blue.

Problem is, Joe User does not want to know what he is doing. He just wants to get his monitor to flicker on and give him pr0n.

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

[quote author=trickster link=board=13;threadid=9075;start=0#msg82164 date=1082648866]
Problem is, Joe User does not want to know what he is doing. He just wants to get his monitor to flicker on and give him pr0n.
[/quote]

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

[quote author=trickster link=board=13;threadid=9075;start=0#msg82164 date=1082648866]
Problem is, Joe User does not want to know what he is doing. He just wants to get his monitor to flicker on and give him pr0n.
[/quote]

Re:Windows vs. Linux- Which is easier to install?

If you rip out all that stuff about partitioning a new linux distro, the XP and FC1 installs are virtually identical. FC1 installer looks nicer, but that&#039;s it. And really, the only reason we have to deal with the partitioning issue is because most all boxes these days come preloaded with windows. Given a completely blank hard disk, it would be trivial to change the installer to allocate 2-3x the user&#039;s RAM for swap, and the rest for /. If you do that transparently, the user is left facing an XP install with less offensive colours.